Metallic

Makes you wonder about the conversations between Goose Green councillors and Village Ward councillors, do they ever talk to each other? Seemingly not. Because wherever you go in Area B and C, and of course A, it seems as if a huge majority of residents, rate paying, long standing in the area, are being made to sacrifice quality of life for a minority of locals.

andrewc Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Politicians are being sued for not reducing > pollution. The Paris agreement on emissions means > that countries are mandated to comply. Not taking > action is not an option. I know that many on this > thread think that polution will go up with road > closures but all the evidence is to the contrary. > I guess this is why politicians are getting > involved. Unless you live on Croxted Road. Good luck with explaining away the displacement and extra pollution they will get.

Sorry for mix up. Roads in SE21/SE22 are not school streets. And also, "On the nature, scale and coverage of the evidence  We located 16 studies, all of which had not been peer reviewed although one was a Masters dissertation  The locations covered by the studies included Camden, Edinburgh, Solihull, Perth and Kinross, East Lothian, Croydon, Southampton, and the region of Flanders, Belgium." and Southwark creeps in extra to the "study" "Supplementation of evidence by interview The use of semi-structured interviews was an additional element to the project, not originally planned at the bid submission stage. This was added, with approval of the funder, after it became clear that the literature on SSCs was limited. The intention was to augment Council reports on SSCs with up-to-date (as of March/April 2020) perspectives and access to newer evidence via direct contact with local authority officers working on SSCs. Requests were made in February and March for interviews by phone. Ten remote interview requests were made and five interviews undertaken. Interviews were recorded for note taking purposes only and subsequently destroyed. One recording failed to work and notes of that discussion relied solely on notes taken. The Topic Guide with questions is provided in Annex 1. Interviewee names are not reported. The local authorities participating were:  London Borough of Camden  London Borough of Croydon  London Borough of Southwark  Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council  Southampton City Council." Edinburgh study: A key lesson learned from the pilots was the need for infrastructure provision: ensuring peripheral streets can accommodate displaced traffic movements,..."

andrewc Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Studies indicate that on average, over-all traffic > reduces by 11% (with a road closure). Is there any > evidence that this drop in car use would not be a > benefit to all local streets in terms of air > quality? You know that research is 18 years old. Stop quoting it. A drop of even 11% leaves 89% plus displaced traffic from elsewhere.

mr.chicken Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Well perhaps they asked me. I'm 100% in favour of > these schemes. The more the better, IMO, or in the > case of cars, the fewer the better. Perhaps if > they're quick enough they can block off both ends > of the roads at once and trap some cars inside. You see, that is the sort of selfish and ridiculous attitude which splits communities and doesn't help anyone. Calm down. Work on solutions not spite.

ED - NAGAIUTB Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Metallic Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Hell awaits us wherever we live in SE22 and > SE21. > > Do these councillors think they will be > returned > > at the next election? Maybe they don't care. > > > Sadly, we're in one of the safest Labour seats in > the country which is why they have the front to do > these things while also holding consultations that > they completely ignore the outcome of. Their vote will be split by independents. In my view anyway.

The councillors told people in the ward that they were looking at the park and/or Sainsbury's DKH. I heard that third hand so who knows?

Hell awaits us wherever we live in SE22 and SE21. Do these councillors think they will be returned at the next election? Maybe they don't care.

Bicknell Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > New measures have bus gates which means Buses and > teh private school coaches and taxis allowed > through. ok for P4. OUtside the zone all the cars > go on East Duwlich grove and lordship Lane where > all the other buses are. Chaos for 176,185,40,37, > etc etc. The proposals don't mention the school coaches, I guess the council will make a charge on rich parents sending their kids that way. But maybe they won't be allowed, and then there is the prospect of the coaches dumping pupils off in all sorts of places like Lordship Lane, or Village Way, or College Road near the roundabout. Then the parents will get their cars out because they won't want their kids walking in polluted areas.

I'm of the opinion that the councillors for Dulwich Village Ward don't expect to be re-elected so are going for broke. I doubt Helen Hayes MP will intervene unless there is a big threat to rebel somehow.

A friend sent me the proposals. Woodwarde will be quieter in rush hour but the number of drop off and three point turns many are about to experience in front of their homes in Calton, Court, College, lower Turney, upper Burbage will be huge. The councillors have sat with their fingers in their ears saying la la la la like kids do, when they don't want to hear the truth from us residents. As for the Estate - absent as usual from helping the doomed shops deal with this debacle and non existent support for residents who all live in a pretty Conservation area now blighted by cameras and probably warning notices of the bans.

Does anyone on here not feel at all guilty about traffic displacement? That report on 11% disappearing traffic is so out of date as to be meaningless in the particular geography of our bigger area. I feel guilty about Croxted Rd which will have it all coming down on them, along with Rosendale Rd. Or Lordship Lane.

andrewc Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This is worth a read too. The effect of a road > closure in New York. > > https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/13/nyregion/14th-s > treet-cars-banned.html ".......you are less likely to drive someplace where new restrictions will theoretically mean excess traffic. The fear is diversion, but the result is deterrence." Then you read the comments column and it sounds as if the surrounding areas are really suffering. Hey ho.

I think there is too much yatter over the Dulwich scheme and actually, just like Quietway 7, it matters not one jot what people think, the council has decided and that is that. Looking forward to election day 2022 when we can get shot of them. After all, most of their support for this Dulwich scheme comes from outside their electoral boundary.

Abe_froeman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I wonder of they'll have ice skating there in the > winter. > > What else can they put on in privilege square? I'm disgusted about it and I live nearby but do not want to be associated with the people there. By the way, Au Ciel is one of the two businesses supporting the closure. Wonder why? Lucky they got their alcohol licence virtually nodded through.

Anyone catch the risible goings on at "Dulwich Square" on Saturday?

Dulwich Park "hosted" a giant party yesterday and the noise was people having fun, but a bit anti-social. Feel for those without gardens and balconies, let a bit of love your neighbour prevail during these times.

"Posted by tradingfiddle Yesterday, 02:20PM Well I am not sure how highlighting an issue with people beginning to park across blocking the junction is unreasonable? People were able to find adequate parking when the junction was open so no need to park across it, may end up needing to extend the double yellows? Not sure why you are mentioning cycling on the pavement but I agree that it is bad and dangerous but if the junction starts to be blocked then unfortunately we are likely to see more cyclists mounting the pavements to get around parked vehicles." Mentioning the pavement cyclists of Calton Ave because I see them as I walk down to the shops from Woodwarde Rd. I simply do not believe people who think this is ok, and I can't understand why Calton Ave is now safe for children to cycle safely - from Woodwarde down yes, but Woodwarde up Calton to Townley? The stupidity of not making this a closed both ends street at the time the bottom closure was implemented, is unbelievable. As for vans parking, they are probably there for a few minutes going to the pharmacy and if their round USED to involve EDG you can hardly blame them for finding another route rather than sit it out in EDG for half an hour.

tradingfiddle Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Are you for real? Plenty of parking in front of > the shops in the designated bays. Not about being > patient as I was in no rush and they were > perfectly able to deliver before the closure > without blocking the road. > > Indeed I am for real. Life isn't going to be perfect for anyone and as cyclists CONTINUE to use the Calton Avenue pavement further up the road, complaining about a van either doing mail or pharmacy deliveries is unreasonable. > > Metallic Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > tradingfiddle Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > Just cycled through the planters on Calton > > Avenue > > > and there was a van parked across them. Also > saw > > a > > > different van parked the same way yesterday, > > maybe > > > supplied for the shops? Tried to take a > > photograph > > > today but the driver clocked me turning > around > > and > > > drove off. > > > > > > Can anything be done to stop this? It makes > it > > as > > > dangerous as before as can't see the > junction. > > > > Where do you expect deliveries to take place? > I > > imagine that a road wide closure means you > could > > have steered round the van without any trouble? > > > There are only bikes. A bit of patience to > make > > your world perfect?

tradingfiddle Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Just cycled through the planters on Calton Avenue > and there was a van parked across them. Also saw a > different van parked the same way yesterday, maybe > supplied for the shops? Tried to take a photograph > today but the driver clocked me turning around and > drove off. > > Can anything be done to stop this? It makes it as > dangerous as before as can't see the junction. Where do you expect deliveries to take place? I imagine that a road wide closure means you could have steered round the van without any trouble? There are only bikes. A bit of patience to make your world perfect?

Let's face it, when any open comments are available for anyone to add their view, you get people who may use the road or area who live quite a distance away. So why should someone who lives in say Nunhead, have a view taken in to consideration in the big tally, of why my road should be shut off to cars? Asking people potentially Southwark-wide to say what they think about Calton Avenue is a disgrace! Thinking of the big cycling campaigns here.....

I've actually come round to the view that all these pro-cycling groups, councillors and anyone wanting to shut roads down, couldn't give a fig for residents of the actual area they are trying to change.The idea that these councillors will be voted back in in 2022 is a joke and I bet new groups like One Dulwich and One Oval will put up candidates that may not get in, but will split the votes of the likes of Cllr. Leeming, Cllr. Newens, Cllr. McAsh and co. I'm really sick of being pushed aside. None of these pressure groups care about traffic displacement. There is a hard core of drivers who have to drive and they will all displace somewhere - at the moment at the end of Dulwich Village and the end of Burbage Road, but when the latter gets shut except for cyclists, watch out Croxted Road, which will make Norwood Road (more) impossible and here we get to the closing of the ring, because Herne Hill will be next to complain.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's the usual developer tactic of buying a place > which doesn't have planning permission for > residential and then leaving it derelict until the > council wave through a change of use application. > What should happen, is that they should be made to > maintain it or face compulsory purchase. Instead, > the council crumble and give them what they want > just so they don't have to live with an eye sore. The site is owned by Dulwich Estate. They have had a deal going for years with the leaseholders, who pay the rent and do nothing. A pub has to be rebuilt on the site.

mr.chicken Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Metallic Wrote: > > > There has been plenty of complaints over the > > pedestrian crossing at the base of Calton > Avenue > > and the danger to anyone using it, going back > to > > the day it was unveiled. And it cost over half > a > > million to make it so unusable we now have this > > version. people have been injured there in > > accidents, and who takes any notice? No one. > > Seems like a dubious claim since the implication > is that no one was bothered by the old junction. > As far as I see, the works changed it from > absolutely terrible to merely pretty bad. > > The main problem is drivers got impatient trying > to turn right out of Calton and would zoom around > and straight at pedestrians trying to cross on a > green man. This has now been fixed. You clearly haven't heard that the cyclists coming from Calton Avenue are on occasion cycling over and through the green pedestrian light on Turney Road. My friend was nearly knocked down, the cyclist stopped to tell her he was on a green, and she pointed out, so was she. One of her neighbours apparently knows the councillors and sent on her email about it, so I guess there is a bit of a problem. I haven't seen it myself but I am not out and about yet. "The main problem is drivers got impatient trying to turn right out of Calton and would zoom around and straight at pedestrians trying to cross on a green man." In all the years I have lived in my road and walked down Calton to take my children to school, I never once saw an incident like that, and certainly never since the crossing was redone the first time.

Ampersand Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > > No co-incidence is it that since the closures > came > > into place Lordship Lane and the A205 have been > > snarled up most times of the day? East Dulwich > > Grove has seen a noticeable increase in the > amount > > of traffic, but, of course, because the council > > aren't monitoring those places they have no > data > > to show what is actually happening. How > > convenient. > > > > I live next to the A205. My living room windows > look out onto the stretch of the South Circular > that runs up the hill from the Grove Tavern to the > Horniman Museum and this assertion is basically > untrue. I?m currently working from home and have > regular opportunities to look out of the window. > The traffic is no busier than it always has been. But it is backed up past Gallery Road going towards your leafy outlook, several times a day, as well as the usual fastish moving back up that goes from around Queen Alexandra Gate.